Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Change Management (as deduced by Prannoy Kankaria)

In the recently culminated course on Business Intelligence here at Great Lakes Institute of Management, Manamai, Prof. Balasubramaniam Ramesh held my attention (at the least) with the concept of how things which seem quite unrelated have an unrecognizable connection/pattern. I was reminded of my college days at Loyola where I learnt for the first time the concept of Change Management. It was a new concept to us and the buzz word around that time. It still remains the buzz word!! It was during one of our interactions post the class that I realized the potential genius of Sir Newton. He had made a statement which was not only true for physical sciences but also the art and science of management. Change Management (sounds like honey to an MBA grad) is a concept he speaks of in his laws of motion. Though not in intention, he has laid down the base for applying change management as done in these laws. Adding these two I decided to pen my ramblings.

Waiting for the proverbial apple to fall :D

Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object will remain at rest or in perpetual motion until an unbalanced force acts upon it. Think about the ‘organizational change’ (change) you want to bring about as the force. The change will disrupt existing paradigms, processes, myths and methods of working while inculcating the change. So the first lesson in change management is to act upon it. Simple isn’t it!!!

Newton’s Second Law states that the rate of change in motion of an object is proportional to the force acting upon it and inversely proportional to its mass. For this case consider the people working in the old and new regime as the objects. It is easy to drive change in a small organization. Lesser the no. of employees, easier is the change. So the mass is equivalent of the employees of the organization. The force in this case can be seen as the methods, tools or strategies you use to drive organizations. The more aligned these strategies, the easier is the change management. So the second law is simple. In large organizations, many methods/ tools / strategies etc. Must be undertaken to have a successful change management program, while in smaller organizations a few of them should do the trick!!!

Newton’s Third Law seals the holy triangle. Newton’s Third Law states that every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction. This law can be interpreted in management terms of approach to the change management. If management resolves to pressurising employees, forcing things on them without proper explanation, they will receive severe resistance from the employees. On the other hand if the reasons for change are explained in an optimal efficient manner then the resistance is diminished to a level as low as possible. To keep it simple, the ways in which the change agent deals with resisters will be reciprocated by the resisters.

Note:

1. I know this post sounds too simplistic and there are complications which may arise out of any of the above laws. One for example would be top executives leaving as a result of change. But like any law these laws are not full proof. The intention was to develop a simple framework which can be tweaked by anyone to suit their situation.
2. Since I’m not an Engineer like most of my esteemed classmates/friends, forgive my ignorance of any in-depth matters left out from the adaption of the Laws of Motion to this piece.

What!!! Are We Secular or Not!!!

This is the first thought that came to my mind after the Ayodhya case was whether we are secular or is it pretentious on our part as a nation. The Babri masjid / Ram janam bhoomi case is a landmark case in the history of Indian judiciary. Whether or not we can call ourselves secular is a debatable topic. We are warring over a piece of land on Indian soil belonging to only two out of several religions in the nation??? How does that make us secular? I laud the judgement given by the Court though as it has tried to solve an issue to which there will never be a right answer, though I do not agree with the verdict. Any party would claim that their right is still higher. We condemn those who demolished the mosque that stood in its stead. Demolishing any sacred place in our country is not permissible, nor should the perpetrators go scot free. India as a nation as well as Hinduism as a religion has been open to other cultures. If all the Upanishads and Vedas are to be believed, we believe in God being omnipresent. Thus, whether a small piece of land has a mosque or a temple should not matter at all.

'Little' Hope...

The most exasperating thing about the whole issue is that post the verdict both the parties (read as segments of Hindu and Muslim populace) are staking that they have not been given a fair verdict. This is where I feel that we as a nation have failed. If a piece of land has been divided between two of the largest communities living in India, where either claims that they have more right over the land, then we as a nation have failed in living up to the ideals of secularism we preach to the world. It is also a disgrace that the politicians of the nation have left stone unturned to ensure that they win the support of the RELIGUOUS segment for their vote bank. If we, Indians, wish to truly exude greatness, we need to rise above such dismal feelings of religious discrimination. I shudder to think of the consequences of what might have happened had the verdict been tilted more towards one - as lame as it sounds - religion. Wonder if Marx thought of all these things when he said, “Religion is the Opium of the People.”

~Adopt a Child~

Most of us want to step on the realm of parenthood, be it now or later in life, it’s something most of us want to experience. From an adolescent to a middle aged man, everyone feels that they should out do their parents in providing comfort and care to their kids.

But the basic criterion for providing such care comes from the thought of conceiving one’s own child. Have we ever considered the option of adopting a child or maybe two? Most of us won’t as it’s still a taboo in our society. Dogmatic beliefs have led to ‘conceiving is a matter of social prestige’. May I ask those who believe in it as important, whether conceiving the child is more important or providing him/her with a proper upbringing?

It’s easy to conceive a child; it’s very difficult to provide him/her with the right upbringing. A case in point maybe our rural population. They keep adding to their numbers at nought's pace but what value does it add. All it does is burden the family which is already struggling to make the both ends meet. On top of this, with many to provide for, they cannot do justice to even a single child. How then, does conceiving become more important than providing a good future?

But this phenomenon is not limited to the rural population, a large segment of our urban population also believes in the same. It has become an integral part of our society, which they consider important to protect the society from anti-social elements. The definition of anti-social surprisingly is not like ‘A is A’, it again depends on what it wishes to tag as anti-social. In India, it is even more difficult than other nations for the diversity we exhibit in our culture. 

So, one is easily discouraged to do this noble deed. The questions that the parents who've adopted must face for trying to secure the future of an innocent child can torment any regular couple. Questions about the child's parentage, cast, creed and all such other irrelevant issues become a hassle for such couples. What about those who're single but wish to enjoy the joys which parenthood gives? They're in for a questioning about their marital status.

Sushmita Sen is a brilliant example for this. She may not remain single forever but she has gone ahead and done what others only wish they could. Her undaunted spirit makes her my hero. We all praise an act of charity but when someone is doing something which is even higher we condemn it. Raveena Tandon also tried something on the similar lines.

The reasons stated are that we don’t know the background of the child? How can one say how he or she will turn out to be? If you aren't sure as to how the child will turn out then why not give it a chance. Of the many philosophers we've had, one of the most well known is Aristotle. He too had lost his parents early and was adopted in his childhood and what a gem he turned out to be; someone whose teachings are followed till date.

Now there are benefits of adoption that we haven’t considered. Let us start with some basic ones; with the rapid growth in population and pressure on limited resources does it not make sense to try to provide for those who already exist than those who don’t exist at all. There exists a double advantage in doing this. We are shaping the future of some young mind, making someone productive and self-reliant. Also, we're reducing the burden of charity to such institutions, on our government (to fund such orphanages), on ourselves and the society at large to fund their growth. Only one’s realisation as to what is important: to a conceived child or bestow it a good childhood is important. Is it for the society to tell us whether the child is ours or is it our belief which matters more.

As we are the future, I urge that we ponder over the matter and make a choice which befits our times. Do not be bogged down by society for it creates rules which must be broken for the sake of progress and betterment; do not let cast, creed and such other irrelevant things deter you from doing something that you believe is noble and fulfilling. It is up to us to decide whether we make an orphan's future or condemn it to a life of hopelessness, while we complain as to why kids beg at the traffic lights.

I don’t say don’t conceive, for it may be important to you, what I wish for is that do not condemn those who're willing to take such courageous decisions. To those who fear the society's rebuke, realise that what it says will affect you only if you want it to. If you're sure that you are doing a noble deed then you may well damn it and live peacefully with a clear conscience that you did what you felt was right, not bending to the whims of a society that doesn’t understand its own follies. So folks don’t deter someone from adopting, and if you think you should then ‘Adopt a Child’.

Shhh! Quiet! Genius at work!!!

The year 2009 was one of the most memorable years for Tennis fans with drama on and off the court. The year began in great fashion with clay court champion Rafael Nadal won his first non-clay grand slam – the Australian Open. The year looked bleak for another champion. Roger Federer. The maestro had lost the numero uno position to Nadal. It looked like the steam in Fedex was gone. From the loss in the Australian Open final to the next Slam the French Open, Federer won only one major tournament, losing out in the semi-finals to those keen to grasp his position and be the next world # 1. Critics had written him off. It was said that marriage and age had caught up with Federer, and that he had lost his hunger to succeed. Sights around the tour did not look too well. New contenders in the form of Serbian Novak Djokovic, British hope Andy Murray and upcoming Argentine star Juan Martin Del Potro were all threatening him with their power and big serve. When asked in a conference before the French Open, Federer said he was confident of performing well in the grand slam, like he always did on the big stage. His initial rounds at Roland Garros saw him struggle with a tough draw consisting of former World #2 Tommy Hass, the incredible Frenchman Gaël Monfils and two other clay court specialists. When Nadal crashed out in the 4^th round to Swede Robin Soderling - the dark horse of the tournament, the tennis world said this could be Federer’s only chance at the French. We do not know whether it is true or not. What we do know is that Soderling outplayed Rafael Nadal - the world’s best clay court player in 4 sets in a best of 5; Roger Federer needed only 3 against Soderling to take home the trophy. Nadal, however, held onto his rank as the best. And, then came Wimbledon and a chance to create history. Federer was tied with Pete Sampras for the record of most grand slams at 14 apiece. Wimbledon they say is Federer’s home ground. On grass, the maestro is unsurpassable and his record of losing only a single match in 2008 since his victory in 2003 is enviable. Federer, just scraping through in the fifth set, managed to win his 6^th Wimbledon and defeat Andy Roddick for the 3^rd time in a tense Wimbledon final. The year progressed to more milestones as Federer celebrated his victory on court with his becoming a father of twins. There is already a wager that one of them would win Wimbledon by the time they are 20. Federer seemed to return to the form he demonstrated in 2005-06 and lost in 2007-08. The victory at Wimbledon saw him regain his #1 rank. In the Open era of tennis (post 1968), only one man could claim that accomplishment — Ivan Lendl. Mats Wilander ended Lendl's three-year run at #1 in 1988, but Lendl was able to regain it in 1989. Also, Federer was among the few who had managed to win the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back. Federer had a marvelous run in the US Open but lost in the finals to young gun Argentine Del Potro. Nevertheless, he did retain his ranking as world #1. Some facts about Federer that caught my attention were as follows. He is only the 6^th player in the Open era to win all four Grand Slams. Since his victory in Wimbledon in 2003, Federer has won at least one Grand Slam each season. He has won more Grand Slams in the Open era than any other player. The only criticism that Federer has drawn from his peers is that he cries at the presentation ceremony of grand slams. It is remarkable how he has managed to create an unblemished repute both on and off the court. The respect he ahs among his peers can be gauged by the fact that Federer single handedly organized a charity event to help the people in Little Haiti. This was unknown to anyone but the players till it was announced officially at the presentation ceremony of the Australian Open 2010,which he won bringing his tally in the slams to 16. The event was organized over-night and players consented to play on Roger’s request. With regards to tennis, the most memorable sight of 2009, however, was the Shot of the Year in the US Open semifinal against Novak Djokovic. After Djokovic brought Federer to the net with a drop shot and pushed him back to the baseline with a lob, Federer hit a between-the-legs, inside-out forehand winner with his back turned to the net that blitzed past Djokovic with the velocity of an ace. The crowd erupted; Djokovic simply smiled, shook his head and walked back to the serve. Silence was restored, as Djokovic served at match point, by banners with the Swiss Flag’s background quoting - Shhh! Quiet! Genius at work!!!